Vogtle_Nuclear_Plant 2.jpg
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Advocates of SMRs claim that they have a new strategy to lower costs of reactor construction in the long run. They say that the cause of rising costs and schedule delays is the size and complexity of large reactors and on the difficulty of managing the large amount of work that needs to be executed on-site. SMRs are expected to be cheaper because they will utilize production line-made modules. Much less work will be required at the construction site.
These arguments have superficial attraction but do not stand up to examination. The main strategy for combating nuclear power’s historic lack of competitiveness has been to build ever-larger reactors. The reasoning is that the expenses associated with constructing and operating a reactor should not increase in direct proportion to the power generated. SMRs cannot escape this economic logic. The scale economies of conventional reactors that will be lost cannot be compensated by factory manufacturing of parts for SMRs. SMRs will cost more than large reactors for each megawatt of generation capacity.
Previous experience with reactor construction suggests that factory manufacturing of modules will not be a panacea. The AP1000 design used at the plants in Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on using modular factory-made components. However, that reliance did not prevent the large cost and time overruns as well as quality control problems that have caused problems for these projects.
The economics of SMRs will only be revealed when large numbers of SMRs manufactured on production lines have been built and their cost known. The private nuclear industry is not going to take the risk of paying for such production lines and buy large numbers of reactors that could well prove to be uneconomic. So, it will have to be public money that will have to be risked. This is a long-standing pattern in nuclear research and manufacturing.
Whether SMRs can compete with large reactors in terms of economics is not really the main issue. The main issue is whether nuclear power can compete with renewable energy sources. Nuclear costs have been relentlessly rising for decades. On the other hand, costs of renewables have plummeted and are now far lower than nuclear costs. In the most recent estimate from Lazard, it is projected that nuclear power plants will generate electricity at an average cost of one hundred and sixty-seven dollars per megawatt hour, wind energy productions will be thirty eight dollars per megawatt hour and solar power will be thirty four dollars per megawatt hour.
Renewables can also be deployed much more quickly and more reliably than nuclear. This is a very important factor in dealing with our climate emergency. One criticism leveled at wind power is that the wind does not blow all the time. The same criticism is applied to solar power because the sun does not shine all the time. So, critics of renewables claim that electrical grids cannot be operated reliably from renewable sources. Advocates of renewables say that this is just a myth. Experts say that renewables can be the basis of a reliable electricity system. This will require that suitable and affordable options, such as energy efficiency, demand response, technological and geographical diversity and some type of energy storage be incorporated.
The economic problems with SMRs means that it is likely that they will not be built in large numbers. It is also unlikely that they will halt the decline of nuclear power. The track record in the U.S., U.K., and Canada to date suggests that the development efforts in these countries are unlikely to succeed. If these three countries with their long history of exploiting nuclear power as well as large financial and skill resources cannot bring these SMR technologies to the market, it is obvious that the prospects for success in other countries will also be bleak.
All of this can be ignored except for the “opportunity costs” of pursuing SMRs. Throughout the history of nuclear power, governments have continually believed that nuclear power would solve the energy problem of the day whether it depends on hostile suppliers of oil and gas, acid rain, and now, climate change.
The belief in the benefits of nuclear power have resulted in grossly over-optimistic and unfulfilled forecasts of nuclear expansion. The attempt to promote nuclear power has diverted money and resources away from the options that would have addressed these issues. If governments continue to pursue SMRs, this will jeopardize our attempts to mitigate climate change.